Unless a node is doing mining, why should it limit the block size? Block size is determined by what the majority of miners accept. Other nodes are just slaves of the miners.

It is called validation because if some peer you are connected to you is going to start throwing huge blocks at you then they are chewing up your bandwidth with rubbish (same as sending you huge txs with no fees, etc.).

Full nodes will necessarily perform such validation in order to reduce potential DoS attacks (am surprised that you hadn't already realised this).

For SPV usage there is much less validation going on (which is why SPV mining is such a bad idea).

is now war but i think this business operators did not understand that bitcoin and the people that using don't need anymore the old financial system. We want to change it or to completely destroy it and create something new. Instead in their opinion bitcoin must change to be a small part of this old system. this is wrong.

Exactly.

If you want to understand the behavior of Andresen, Hearn, and Ver* you should continue reading here:

The prognosis for younger persons with narcissistic disorders is hopeful to the extent that the disturbances reflect a simple lack of life experience. The outlook for long-standing NPD, however, is largely negative. Some narcissists are able, particularly as they approach their midlife years, to accept their own limitations and those of others, to resolve their problems with envy, and to accept their own mortality. Most patients with NPD, on the other hand, become increasingly depressed as they grow older within a youth-oriented culture and lose their looks and overall vitality. The retirement years are especially painful for patients with NPD because they must yield their positions in the working world to the next generation. In addition, they do not have the network of intimate family ties and friendships that sustain most older people.

(*) Now also known as Vearndresencoiners.

ya.ya.yo!

great point! Indeed, the are sick.

-He or she has a grandiose sense of self-importance (exaggerates accomplishments and demands to be considered superior without real evidence of achievement).-He or she lives in a dream world of exceptional success, power, beauty, genius, or "perfect" love.- He or she thinks of him- or herself as "special" or privileged, and that he or she can only be understood by other special or high-status people- He or she is exploitative towards others and takes advantage of them.- He or she "has an attitude" or frequently acts in haughty or arrogant ways.

Are't these common to those...so called "elite shit" who say that they represent BTC? Remember their interviews, their speeches.

They only want to control Bitcoin. Who are they? Look to the big exchangers' shareholders(they are the same; as I stated in a previous post). They are "they" All of them are connected. It's not a theory of conspiration. It's the pure truth with facts.

We don't need change we're not ready for. The 1MB Block size symbolizes not only a technological limitation on the network, but a limitation of the capability of the community.

We don't have a proper solution to the Block size increase yet. We also need to address node incentives (if we're to implement hard forking change). Satoshi said he believes we need a way to incentivize the propagation of fresh transactions to the network.

Giving node control to miners is not centralization unless you believe miners are centralized. If you believe miners are centralized, then what does it matter if the nodes are also?

I do believe mining is a dangerously centralized business which is why the nodes are required to keep this inherent economy of scale in check.

Mining centralization can only affect the network to a certain extent. Centralization of governance (full nodes) implies that they get to change the rules as it pleases them. Not a risk I wanna take.

Again with politics. Why do you insist that governance has anything to do with Bitcoin? You can change rules on your own miner or node, but you can't force anyone else to change them too.

Yes. Some Bitcoiners hate choice.

Some of them don't:

"I will argue that it is more important that nodes follow the longest chain composed of valid transactions than dogmatically adhere to an arbitrary block size limit. I will end my talk by proposing a simple change for bitcoin software to allow a node operator to express his free choice regarding the size of blocks he is willing to accept while simultaneously ensuring that his node tracks consensus."

"I will argue that it is more important that nodes follow the longest chain composed of valid transactions than dogmatically adhere to an arbitrary block size limit. I will end my talk by proposing a simple change for bitcoin software to allow a node operator to express his free choice regarding the size of blocks he is willing to accept while simultaneously ensuring that his node tracks consensus."

That makes absolutely no sense - if your node is not going to accept a large block due to his "free choice" and yet that large block becomes part of the consensus chain then exactly how is that node supposed to "track consensus"?

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong calls the industry to fork Bitcoin Core by the end of December

Quote

In my view, Bitcoin XT is the best option I've seen so far. Not just because it has working code, but also because it has a simple implementation that is easy to understand, the block-size increases seem about right to me, and I have confidence in the people behind the project. My preference at this point would be to have Gavin step up as the final decision-maker on Bitcoin XT, and have the industry move to that solution with help from Mike Hearn, Jeff Garzik and others that wish to do so.”

The CEO believes an upgrade is urgently needed in order for the Bitcoin network to handle a sudden increase of Bitcoin usage. As such, Armstrong emphasized that Coinbase will not wait for consensus to form among the Bitcoin development community.

“We will upgrade regardless of whether Bitcoin Core is updated,” Armstrong said. “Capacity planning is something you should try to get ahead of. Growth can be unpredictable, and I want to remove all blockers to Bitcoin's success. I've been disappointed to see how slow Bitcoin Core has moved on this issue, and we're open to switching forks.”

Everyone understand that these discordances are only bad for bitcoin. I cannot understand how is possible that all these people who live with and mainly for bitcoin cannot find a solution for a so "easy" problem. The actual size of blocks is a problem which affect all the activity of bitcoin. Most of technicians of this field agree that the actual size is more problem than good for bitcoin. Hours to have confirmation. Most of the developers of bitcoin accept the fact that needed an increase of size of the blocks. Size less, size more, them accept the increase of block size. Why don't agree? Why don't be able to collaborate and arrive at an unique conclusion about such important thing which have months of discussion and risk the sure future development of bitcoin? I cannot understand such behavior. Seems like children which quarrel about the size of their ice cream and not for the future of a such important invention like bitcoin. Very bad. Very irresponsibly. Very risky. When and how will finish?

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong calls the industry to fork Bitcoin Core by the end of December

Quote

In my view, Bitcoin XT is the best option I've seen so far. Not just because it has working code, but also because it has a simple implementation that is easy to understand, the block-size increases seem about right to me, and I have confidence in the people behind the project. My preference at this point would be to have Gavin step up as the final decision-maker on Bitcoin XT, and have the industry move to that solution with help from Mike Hearn, Jeff Garzik and others that wish to do so.”

The CEO believes an upgrade is urgently needed in order for the Bitcoin network to handle a sudden increase of Bitcoin usage. As such, Armstrong emphasized that Coinbase will not wait for consensus to form among the Bitcoin development community.

“We will upgrade regardless of whether Bitcoin Core is updated,” Armstrong said. “Capacity planning is something you should try to get ahead of. Growth can be unpredictable, and I want to remove all blockers to Bitcoin's success. I've been disappointed to see how slow Bitcoin Core has moved on this issue, and we're open to switching forks.”

Everyone understand that these discordances are only bad for bitcoin. I cannot understand how is possible that all these people who live with and mainly for bitcoin cannot find a solution for a so "easy" problem. The actual size of blocks is a problem which affect all the activity of bitcoin. Most of technicians of this field agree that the actual size is more problem than good for bitcoin. Hours to have confirmation. Most of the developers of bitcoin accept the fact that needed an increase of size of the blocks. Size less, size more, them accept the increase of block size. Why don't agree? Why don't be able to collaborate and arrive at an unique conclusion about such important thing which have months of discussion and risk the sure future development of bitcoin? I cannot understand such behavior. Seems like children which quarrel about the size of their ice cream and not for the future of a such important invention like bitcoin. Very bad. Very irresponsibly. Very risky. When and how will finish?

we're learning not everyone understands how bitcoin works, ego is not part of bitcoin, yet it seems to have latched on where there is weakness, its' a good thing it'll either kill bitcoin or make it stronger.

In my view small blockists just need to digest whats been said, we now wait a little, while egos settle, then we can move on.

we're learning not everyone understands how bitcoin works, ego is not part of bitcoin, yet it seems to have latched on where there is weakness, its' a good thing it'll either kill bitcoin or make it stronger.

In my view small blockists just need to digest whats been said, we now wait a little, while egos settle, then we can move on.

You are right that ego is not part of Bitcoin. Bitcoin also doesn't wait for egos to settle down, it waits for consensus. In the marketplace of ideas, usually the mediocre ideas win because sales, marketing, and profit margins. Egos are very good at selling mediocrity at a hefty profit margin.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.